D&D 5E Attack bonus equals Strength AND Dexterity, not Strength OR Dexterity.

[doctorbadwolf]

I understand this logic, but the actual application of ranged attacks depends a lot more on muscle coordination, balance, and such, than on the math/physics IMO.

Now, you could extend my idea in the OP so that melee attacks were STR/DEX combo but ranged attacks were DEX/INT combo, with the same +5 max?

I'd say that Wisdom makes more sense than Int for ranged attacks, since it is related to Perception, but yeah that could work.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'd say that Wisdom makes more sense than Int for ranged attacks, since it is related to Perception, but yeah that could work.

Ah, Dr. BW, will we ever agree on anything??? (j/k)

IF I did it, I would do it more due to the idea of Investigation not Perception and for the fact WIS is already a power-stat compared to INT.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ah, Dr. BW, will we ever agree on anything??? (j/k)

IF I did it, I would do it more due to the idea of Investigation not Perception and for the fact WIS is already a power-stat compared to INT.

Eh, fair enough. I refuse to design anything for the game based on trying to make each stat equally useful, and I don't think the designers should either, but if that is important then I support your efforts to do so and will gladly help with forum-based theory crafting to that end.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Eh, fair enough. I refuse to design anything for the game based on trying to make each stat equally useful, and I don't think the designers should either, but if that is important then I support your efforts to do so and will gladly help with forum-based theory crafting to that end.

True. Balance is important, but not to the point of sacrificing fun or the reasonability (?) of a rule. That's why I also said I would do INT due to Investigation instead of Perception and thus WIS.

But certainly don't stress over this thread at all. I just was thinking about it the other morning as a way to balance STR/DEX builds a bit. shrug

 

[doctorbadwolf]

True. Balance is important, but not to the point of sacrificing fun or the reasonability (?) of a rule. That's why I also said I would do INT due to Investigation instead of Perception and thus WIS.

But certainly don't stress over this thread at all. I just was thinking about it the other morning as a way to balance STR/DEX builds a bit. shrug

It's a fun idea. My POV is that PCs are too restricted in ability scores as it is, due to how people tend to view a 12 as a "low" score, rather than "above average but not incredible", but that just means that I would only use this rule in a game with a little bit higher point buy than the RAW.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It's a fun idea. My POV is that PCs are too restricted in ability scores as it is, due to how people tend to view a 12 as a "low" score, rather than "above average but not incredible", but that just means that I would only use this rule in a game with a little bit higher point buy than the RAW.

LOL see I prefer to try to change how people view the 12 instead of giving them "more" so they have the 16 or higher they want in half their scores.

I know it is all a matter of perspective of course.
I see a +1 as "the next level" above 0, and so on. In relative terms of Athletics, for instance:

-1 equals you sucked in gym class in high school.
+0 equals some high school sports in gym class.
+1 equals playing on a high school sports team.
+2 equals making the college sport team.
+3 equals making an amateur-pro team. (think minor league for baseball)
+4 equals making the pro team (the major league)
+5 equals making the all-starts roster.

Now, apply that "style of thinking" to ability scores instead. For most of the game, I think a +3 in your major ability score is very good and keeps the game a bit of challenge but not too hard. By the time you reach tier 3, you probably want to consider bumping it to +4, and +4 or even +5 is certainly recommended by tier 4 IMO.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

LOL see I prefer to try to change how people view the 12 instead of giving them "more" so they have the 16 or higher they want in half their scores.

I know it is all a matter of perspective of course.
I see a +1 as "the next level" above 0, and so on. In relative terms of Athletics, for instance:

-1 equals you sucked in gym class in high school.
+0 equals some high school sports in gym class.
+1 equals playing on a high school sports team.
+2 equals making the college sport team.
+3 equals making an amateur-pro team. (think minor league for baseball)
+4 equals making the pro team (the major league)
+5 equals making the all-starts roster.

Now, apply that "style of thinking" to ability scores instead. For most of the game, I think a +3 in your major ability score is very good and keeps the game a bit of challenge but not too hard. By the time you reach tier 3, you probably want to consider bumping it to +4, and +4 or even +5 is certainly recommended by tier 4 IMO.

IME, it isn't possible to genuinely change how people see the 12, and I don't find trying to change how people think to be a particularly fulfilling activity, unless the thinking in question has some sort of moral weight by way of affected people's lives. When it's unimportant stuff, I'd rather just make a simple and fun change like using a 32 point buy for chargen.

 

[DND_Reborn]

IME, it isn't possible to genuinely change how people see the 12, and I don't find trying to change how people think to be a particularly fulfilling activity, unless the thinking in question has some sort of moral weight by way of affected people's lives. When it's unimportant stuff, I'd rather just make a simple and fun change like using a 32 point buy for chargen.

Ok, but don't you find the higher scores make the game (which IMO is already too easy) too easy and not as much of a challenge?

Personally, I would enjoy the 27-point buy with no ASIs for race at all. I know that isn't popular as the other thread showed, but I'm okay with that.

(This is starting to threadjack, but whatever... ).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ok, but don't you find the higher scores make the game (which IMO is already too easy) too easy and not as much of a challenge?

Personally, I would enjoy the 27-point buy with no ASIs for race at all. I know that isn't popular as the other thread showed, but I'm okay with that.

(This is starting to threadjack, but whatever... ).

Not at all. The game is as hard as I make it, as the DM. It just allows me more freedom in building encounters without creating accidental TPKs.

But I also increase stats and number of proficiency of NPCs, and often give them magic items (on the rare occasions that I roll randomly, I do so before the scene is encountered and put the useful stuff in the hands of the NPCs that they will encounter) to a point where they don't feel super lackluster and boring. Animals gets darkvision a lot, every creature has at least 1 proficient save and a couple skills, humanoids get race stats added if they don't have them already, etc. This is done mostly just to make them less boring, though.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not at all. The game is as hard as I make it, as the DM. It just allows me more freedom in building encounters without creating accidental TPKs.

That's fine, then. As I feel I have a firm grasp on encounter design in 5E as it was "intended", I don't like bumping stuff for PCs up because then I have to either bump up monsters or throw harder things at them, making lower CR monsters even less of a threat than many already are.

I do agree, however, every monster/NPC should have at least one proficient save and two skills, and we commonly give them to opponents and NPCs on the fly to make them more interesting and/or useful.